RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3104, 30 January 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day, (Before James Fulton, Esq., R.M.) SLAUGHTERING LICENSES. A slaughtering license was applied for by John S. Wilson. To be granted when the yard is completed. John Asher's application for a slaughtering license was granted on condition of the yard being kept properly clean. CIVIL CASES. Sampson v. Muir—L3 10s ; Mr Harris for the plaintiff, Mr Edward Cook for the defendant. The claim was for the difference of value between some pigs bought at auction and those delivered, and for loss of time and trouble in fetching them. —Charles Sampson, the plaintiff, said that he purchased five pigs at auction, out of a stye of nine, the condition being that the purchaser should have his choice of the nine. The following day he sent his slaughterman for the pigs, delivery of which was refused, and he bad to send the next day before be got them. Instead of his slaughterman being allowed to select the best pigs, four of the worst were delivered, which were not worth within 15s each of the other?. Ha settled the account with the auctioneer. He claimed ids for the expense of sending his man with horae and and cart. John Stephenson, auctioneer, sold the pigs on Muir’s account at auction. The condition on which five were sold was that the purchaser was to have the pick. They were knocked down to Sampson. He did not notice the pigs, but some of them were smaller than others ; perhaps the difference in value might be 4s or 5s each—he could not positively say. He understood the arrangement to.be that the pigs were to be removed next day, and thepickmighthave been made then, Arthur Upjohn, slaughterman to the plaintiff, was sent for seven pigs on the day following the sale, when defendant refused to deliver them unless some of them were paid for. He would not take part without the whole, and was sent again the next day, when five pigs were delivered to him without giving him the opportunity of selection. He saw some other pigs on the ground, which were worth about thirty shillings each. Those that he received were worth about a pound each.— For the defence, Mr Cook held that no

demand was made for selection, and no refusal to deliver was given. '1 be defendant said the pigs in question were all the same litter. He could nob see much difference in their value. Plaintiff did not select the pigs : his man called the next day ; delivery was not refused, but Upjohn went away because tbe sow could not. be got into the cart. The pigs were called for the day after, and the sow on the following Saturday. The day after delivery, Upjohn called and said there was a row about the? pigs, but if he would pay 15s no more would he said. He himself took the four pigs from the stye, hut he did not know whether he took the largest or not, he could not say. He did not refuse delivery of the pigs, on the ground that part were sold privately.-—Mrs Muir was called, who said that Upjohn, when he found he could not get the sow into the cart, said he would call the next day.—Allen was called, who said that had two pigs been withdrawn he would have chosen the rest hli idfold. He would have taken the lot at 25s each. The difference in value was 3s cash. Judgment for the plaintiff, 30s with costs.